I need some help with New Kingdom Egypt! (1 Viewer)

[Adam.Meads]

go egpyt tutankhamun best king ever!!

What the fuck ... I bet that was a friend of mine lol.

 

[xeuyrawp]

I'm very interested ... Where can I find it?

I'm editing it while away and hopefully getting it published somewhere. I'll let you know what happens.

I knew I did well, but my supervisor said that it was good enough to be published after a bit of tweaking.

 

[Adam.Meads]

I'm editing it while away and hopefully getting it published somewhere. I'll let you know what happens.

I knew I did well, but my supervisor said that it was good enough to be published after a bit of tweaking.

Congratulations man

 

[xeuyrawp]

Congratulations man

hahah, don't congratulate me yet. It'll definitely be rejected the first few times until I creep down to something like the Bulletin of the Australian Centre for Egyptology...

 

[klaratiara]

"Nature of Egyptian Imperialism" refers to the foreign policy of the pharaohs. You can talk about all pharaohs and how through military campaigning, diplomacy, setting up of trade links in foreign lands, the administration in Nubia and Syria-Palestine, and how they expanded their borders and control over many cities, they created an empire. It's just refering to the control of foreign lands, that's all. For the "nature" part you can just talk about the history of Egyptian pharaohs, and how the warrior image was created which meant that in order to control other lands, rather than just going to peace treaties, they first had to make military conquests (Thut I and III especially). Up to Hatshepsut the aim of NK pharaohs was to maintain their trade links through constant military campaigning, however with Thut IV and Amenhotep where the consolidation period continued (moreso), the nature of Egyptian imperialism was through treaties, inspections, tribute etc (you can mention Thut III in that as well).

More than likely the question will ask about foreign policy or the development of the empire. If you look at past papers, the empire question is really common. I haven't seen any that particuarly say 'imperialism' but it's the same thing anyway.

hope that helps

ok when i was taught this dot point my teacher stressed the fact that egypt is debatably called an empire as it didnt quite rule over syria palestine in an empire like way as it did with nubia. true, based on the government Egypt set up in nubia with the vicery of kush, egypt could be seen as having set up an empire here.

However i think the dot point refers to the fact that historians debate over whether egypt can be called an empire because apart from subjugating syria palesting and treating them as vassal states, they didnt set up a governing system here like they did in nubia.

if a question surrounding the nature of Eqyptian Imperialism came up in the exam, i think you would have to discuss how egypt set up an empire in nubia but it is debatable over whether they set up a similar administrastion system in syria palestine, rather than just defeting it and demanding tribute and loyalty.

thats just what i was taught. maybe i'm wrong too

 

[samuel slack]

You're right in that Syria-Palestine and Nubia were administered differently... but understand that the concept of an empire is a modern one, Egyptians didn't have any concept of an empire, therefore they didn't act in the way that an imperial power would. So it is questionable as to whether they had an empire.

Oh and btw good luck with the publication Pwar. =)

 

[klaratiara]

true.
i was comparing them to the roman empire in my head...

 

[xeuyrawp]

ok when i was taught this dot point my teacher stressed the fact that egypt is debatably called an empire as it didnt quite rule over syria palestine in an empire like way as it did with nubia. true, based on the government Egypt set up in nubia with the vicery of kush, egypt could be seen as having set up an empire here.

However i think the dot point refers to the fact that historians debate over whether egypt can be called an empire because apart from subjugating syria palesting and treating them as vassal states, they didnt set up a governing system here like they did in nubia.

if a question surrounding the nature of Eqyptian Imperialism came up in the exam, i think you would have to discuss how egypt set up an empire in nubia but it is debatable over whether they set up a similar administrastion system in syria palestine, rather than just defeting it and demanding tribute and loyalty.

thats just what i was taught. maybe i'm wrong too

See I'm not sure about that, either. In this period, the furthest Egyptian administrative post was the overseer of foreigners ('scouts' in Lichtheim), and that was in Aswan! How could the Egyptians have set up an empire in Nubia when the last Egyptian official lived in Aswan.

Granted, they took expeditions into the south and west, but they could not have administered or homogenised it - necessary for an empire.

However, they certainly did control Nubia far more than the north, so your point is definitely valid.

true.
i was comparing them to the roman empire in my head...

Hilarious thing is the 'Roman empire consisted of definite borders' premise is, as we speak, being assessed.

But even so, you're right in that Egypt cannot be compared to Rome. Think of Jesus, who was growing up in an area which was semi-Romanised, and which was about to have non-Roman beliefs/customs/language made illegal. The Egyptians didn't do this.

They simply did not want to force non-Egyptians to become Egyptian, because one of the inherent factors of being Egyptian is that you're not trampled upon. How can we trample the Asiatics and the vile Kush if they're all made Egyptian?!